Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV22100, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV22100    Hearing Date: April 18, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is DENIED.

On 12/15/2022, Plaintiff Johnnie Mcgee (Plaintiff) filed suit against Defendant County of Los Angeles (County), alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; and (3) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. 

On 3/26/2025, Plaintiff moved to reopen discovery for the purpose of compelling further responses to his RFPs (Set Ten).

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks to reopen discovery for the purpose of compelling further responses to his RFPs (Set Ten). Plaintiff argues that good cause exists for granting this motion because “the documents were requested prior to the date that the Final Status Conference and trial dates were moved, and Plaintiff's counsel inadvertently did not realize that the documents requested in Request for Production No. 10 had been objected to and had not been produced. In the interest of full disclosure, and to potentially facilitate settlement in a case that otherwise is very unlikely to settle, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court reopen discovery and order the County to serve a supplemental response, without objections, under which Defendant agrees to produce the documents requested by Plaintiff in set ten (10) of his Requests for Production of Documents (set 10).” (Motion, 2: 17-24.)

            After review, the Court finds no good cause exists.

Discovery closed in early December 2024, and on 12/5/2024, Plaintiff submitted a stipulated ex parte application which requested a continuance of the trial date, the final status conference, and the deadline to complete expert discovery. The application did not include reference to the deadline to complete fact discovery. (Haney Decl. ¶ 3 & Exh 2) As such, the deadline to complete fact discovery was not extended.

On 12/17/2024, the County served its responses to discovery propounded on 11/17/2024. (Haney Decl., ¶ 5 & Exh. 4.) Defendant’s responses contained clearly articulated objections to the Requests—primarily, that the Requests were untimely because discovery had closed prior to the 12/17/2024, response date, and Plaintiff was therefore required to seek relief from the Court if he wished to complete discovery proceedings past the cut-off date. (See Haney Decl., Exh. 4 [Responses], at Response No. 79-90.)

As such, Plaintiff has had more than three months from the date Defendant served its responses (12/17/2024) to file this Motion. Yet, Plaintiff waited until 3/26/2025. Plaintiff makes no attempt in his motion to justify his more-than-three-month delay in bringing the Motion. Counsels’ failure to review the discovery at the time it was served does not amount to good cause. This is especially true given that trial is set for 5/12/2025.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  April    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.